Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) poses significant clinical challenges, often necessitating surgical intervention for improved patient outcomes. The choice between mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) is crucial in managing IE. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of MVP and MVR in treating IE, focusing on outcomes such as postoperative bleeding, mortality, recurrent endocarditis, and stroke.

MAIN TEXT

A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing MVP and MVR in IE patients were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Thirty-two studies involving 82,123 patients were included. MVP was associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.84) and reduced long-term mortality (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.51) compared to MVR. However, MVR showed lower rates of recurrent endocarditis. MVP was also associated with a decreased likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.68).2, 4 CONCLUSIONS: MVP demonstrates advantages over MVR in reducing postoperative bleeding, long-term mortality, and stroke risk in IE patients. However, individual patient factors and surgical expertise must be considered in treatment decisions. Further research, including randomized controlled trials, is needed to validate these findings and refine treatment algorithms for IE management.

Surgery for Active Infective Endocarditis on Mitral Valve: Anatomical, Surgical, and Disease Factors as Long-Term Outcome Modifiers

Background and Objectives: Determinants of long-term outcomes after surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to assess anatomical, disease, and surgical risk factors for long-term mortality and need of reintervention, in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery for active endocarditis. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for active native mitral valve endocarditis at three academic centres, between 2000 and 2022, were analysed. The primary outcome was long-term survival. The secondary outcome was the freedom from mitral reoperation. Survival curves were constructed with Kaplan-Meier methodology. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify demographic, anatomical, disease, and surgical factors associated with late mortality and reoperation. Results: 335 consecutive patients with active mitral endocarditis were analysed. Two hundred and one patients (70.5%) had infection confined to the valve cusp whereas 89 (25.6%) had invasive disease extended to the annulus and surrounding tissues. Preoperative neurological events occurred at the diagnosis in 52 cases. Streptococci were the most common causative organisms followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Enterococcus. Valve repair was performed in 108 patients (32.2%). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 70.1% and 59.2%, respectively. Staphylococcus emerged as an independent predictor of late mortality, along with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous cardiac surgery. Survival was considerably reduced in patients with S. aureus compared with those without (log rank p < 0.001). The type of surgery (repair vs. replacement) did not emerge as a risk factor for late mortality and reoperation. Seventeen patients underwent mitral reoperation during the follow-up. The 5- and 10-year freedom from reoperation was 94.7% and 91.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Active mitral valve endocarditis remains a life-threatening disease with impaired survival. While lesion characteristics influenced surgical decision-making and intraoperative management, their impact on long-term survival and freedom from reintervention appears to be moderated by other factors such as infecting pathogens and patient comorbidities.

Tricuspid valve repair for infective endocarditis

OBJECTIVES

The progressive increase in the use of implantable electronic devices, vascular access for dialysis and the increased life expectancy of patients with congenital heart diseases has led in recent years to a considerable number of right-side infective endocarditis, especially of the tricuspid valve (TV). Although current guidelines recommend TV repair for native tricuspid valve endocarditis (TVE), the percentage of valve replacements remains very high in numerous studies. The aim of our study is to analyse our experience in the treatment of TVE with a reparative approach.

METHODS

This case series includes all the patients who underwent surgery for acute or healed infective endocarditis on the native TV, at the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Bruxelles, Belgium) between February 2001 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included in the study. Twenty-eight (90.3%) underwent TV repair and 3 (9.7%) had a TV replacement with a mitral homograft. The repair group was divided into 2 subgroups, according to whether a patch was used during surgery or not. Hospital mortality was 33.3% (n = 1) for the replacement group and 7.1% (n = 2) for repair (P = 0.25). Overall survival at 10 years was 75.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 52-89%]. Further, freedom from reoperation on the TV at 10 years was 59.3% (95% CI: 7.6-89%) vs 93.7% (95% CI: 63-99%) (P = 0.4) for patch repair and no patch use respectively. Freedom from recurrent endocarditis at 10 years was 87% (95% CI: 51-97%).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that TVE is more common in young patients, a repair-oriented approach should be considered as the first choice. In the case of extremely damaged valves, the use of pericardial patch is a valid option. If repair is not feasible, the use of a mitral homograft is an additional useful solution to reduce the prosthetic material.

Early Surgery for Infective Endocarditis Complicated With Neurologic Injury

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the association between early surgery and the risk of mortality in patients with left-sided infective endocarditis in the context of stroke.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was a multiinstitution study based on the Chang Gung Research Database, which contains electronic medical records from 7 hospitals in northern and southern Taiwan; these include 2 medical centers, 2 regional hospitals, and 3 district hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with active left-sided infective endocarditis who underwent valve surgery between September 2002 and December 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

The authors divided patients into 2 groups, with versus without preoperative neurologic complications, had undergone early (within 7 d) or later surgery, and with brain ischemia or hemorrhage.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-two patients with a median time from diagnosis to surgery of 6 days were included. No significant differences in postoperative stroke, in-hospital mortality, or follow-up outcomes were observed between the patients with and without neurologic complications. Among the patients with preoperative neurologic complications, patients who underwent early surgery had a lower 30-day postoperative mortality rate (13.1% v 25.8%; hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.67). In the subgroup analysis of the comparison between brain ischemia and hemorrhage groups, there was no significant between-group difference in the in-hospital outcomes or outcomes after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Early cardiac surgery may be associated with more favorable clinical outcomes in patients with preoperative neurologic complications. Thus, preoperative neurologic complications should not delay surgical interventions.

To repair or to replace in mitral valve infective endocarditis? an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that affects patients' livelihoods. Current surgical options in mitral valve IE include mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR). While each procedure boasts its merits, doubt remains as to which type of surgery is superior.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane literature databases for studies comparing MVR and MVr in mitral valve IE. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational studies that compare MVR vs. MVr in mitral valve IE were eligible. Our dichotomous outcomes were extracted in the form of event and total, and risk and hazard ratio (RR)(HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and were pooled and calculated using RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

Our study included 23 studies with a total population of 11,802 patients. Compared to MVR, MVr had statistically significant lower risks of both early mortality with RR [0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51; p < 0.001] and long-term follow-up mortality with HR [0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85; p = 0.0004]. Moreover, MVr was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of IE recurrence with RR [0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58; p < 0.001]; however, no statistically significant differences between both groups in terms of re-operations with RR [0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.67; p = 0.60].

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that MVr was superior in terms of in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and risk of recurrence without significance in valve reoperation. Therefore, MVr is appropriate as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Surgical repair and replacement for native mitral valve infective endocarditis

AIMS

The clinical benefits of mitral valve repair over replacement in the setting of mitral infective endocarditis are not clearly established.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis over a 20-year period (2001-2021) at two cardiac centres were reviewed. Among them, 282 patients underwent native mitral valve surgery and were included in the study. Nearest-neighbour propensity-score matching was performed to account for differences in patients' profile between the repair and replacement subgroups.

RESULTS

Mitral valve replacement was performed in 186 patients, while in 96 cases patients underwent mitral valve repair. Propensity match analysis provided 89 well matched pairs. Mean age was 60 ± 15 years; 75% of the patients were male. Mitral valve replacement was more commonly performed in patients with involvement of both mitral leaflets, commissure(s) and mitral annulus. Patients with lesion(s) limited to P2 segment formed the majority of the cases undergoing mitral valve repair. There was no difference in terms of microbiological findings. In-hospital mortality was 7% with no difference between the repair and the replacement cohorts. Survival probabilities at 1, 5 and 10 years were 88%, 72% and 68%, respectively after mitral repair, and 88%, 78% and 63%, respectively after mitral replacement (log-rank P  = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral valve repair was more commonly performed in patients with isolated single leaflet involvement and provided good early and 10-year outcomes. Patients with annular disruption, lesion(s) on both leaflets and commissure(s) were successfully served on early and mid-term course by mitral valve replacement.

Mitral Valve Repair vs. Replacement by Different Etiologies - A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

When mitral valve (MV) surgery is indicated, repair is preferred over replacement; however, this preference is not supported by evidence from clinical trials. Furthermore, the benefits of MV repair may not be universal for all etiologies of MV disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study identified a total of 18,428 patients who underwent MV repair (n=4,817) or MV replacement (n=13,611) during 2001-2018 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. These patients were classified into 4 etiologies: infective endocarditis (IE, n=2,678), rheumatic heart disease (RHD, n=4,524), ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR, n=3,893), and degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR, n=7,333). After propensity matching, all-cause mortality during follow-up was lower among patients receiving MV repair than among patients receiving MV replacement in the IE, IMR, and DMR groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.93; HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; and HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.84, respectively). However, in the RHD group, the MV reoperation rate was higher after MV repair than after MV replacement (subdistribution HR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.02-3.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with MV replacement, MV repair was associated with a lower late mortality in patients with IE, IMR, and DMR, and a higher risk of reoperation in patients with RHD.

Isolated mitral valve endocarditis: Patient, disease, and surgical factors that influence outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to investigate patient characteristics, valve pathology, bacteriology, and surgical techniques related to outcome of patients who underwent surgery for isolated native (NVE) or prosthetic (PVE) mitral valve endocarditis.

METHODS

From January 2002 to January 2020, 447 isolated mitral endocarditis operations were performed, 326 for NVE and 121 for PVE. Multivariable analysis of time-related outcomes used random forest machine learning.

RESULTS

Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causative organism. Of 326 patients with NVE, 88 (27%) underwent standard mitral valve repair, 43 (13%) extended repair, and 195 (60%) valve replacement. Compared with NVE with standard repair, patients who underwent all other operations were older, had more comorbidities, worse cardiac function, and more invasive disease. Hospital mortality was 3.8% (n = 17); 0 (0%) after standard valve repair, 3 (7.0%) after extended repair, 8 (4.1%) after NVE replacement, and 6 (5.0%) after PVE re-replacement. Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 91%, 75%, and 62% after any repair and 86%, 62%, and 44% after replacement, respectively. The most important risk factor for mortality was renal failure. Risk-adjusted outcomes, including survival, were similar in all groups. Unadjusted extended repair outcomes, particularly early, were similar or worse than replacement in terms of reinfection, reintervention, regurgitation, gradient, and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient- and pathology-tailored approach to surgery for isolated mitral valve endocarditis has low mortality and excellent results. Apparent superiority of standard valve repair is related to patient characteristics and pathology. Renal failure is the most powerful risk factor. In case of extensive destruction, extended repair shows no benefit over replacement.

A Nationwide Study on Mitral Valve Repair vs Replacement for Active Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence supporting the reproducibility and superiority of valve repair over replacement in active mitral valve infective endocarditis is lacking.

METHODS

Data from a prospective nationwide database, including all cardiac surgical procedures in The Netherlands, were used. Adult patients undergoing primary mitral valve intervention who had a diagnosis of active infective endocarditis and who underwent surgery between 2013 and 2020 were included. Survival analysis was performed for the whole follow-up period as well as after applying the landmark of 90 days.

RESULTS

Of 715 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 294 (41.1%) underwent valve repair. Mitral valve repair rates decreased slightly over the course of the study. The early mortality rate was 13.0%, and a trend of steadily declining early mortality rates over the course of the study, despite a steady increase in patient complexity, was observed. On risk-adjusted analysis, mitral valve replacement demonstrated inferior results when compared with valve repair (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.216; 95% CI, 1.425-3.448; P < .001), even after a landmark analysis was performed (adjusted hazard ratio 2.489; 95% CI, 1.124-5.516; P = .025). These results were confirmed by a propensity score-adjusted analysis (adjusted hazard ratio 2.251; 95% CI, 1.029-4.21; P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary trends in mitral valve surgery for active infective endocarditis suggest growing patient complexity but slightly declining early mortality rates. A trend of decreasing mitral valve repair rates was seen. The results of this study suggest improved late outcomes of valve repair compared with valve replacement.

Mid-term outcomes following the Hemi-Commando procedure for complex infective endocarditis involving the aortomitral junction

OBJECTIVES

Perivalvular abscesses with destruction of the aortomitral junction (AMJ) are a severe complication of infective endocarditis (IE) and are associated with high mortality and complex management. The Hemi-Commando procedure is a mitral valve-sparing alternative to the Commando procedure in suitable patients with complex IE and paravalvular destruction. This study reviews the mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing the Hemi-Commando procedure for treating IE with destruction of the AMJ.

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of patients with IE and AMJ involvement who underwent the Hemi-Commando procedure between 2015 and 2021 at the Leipzig Heart Center were retrospectively analysed. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival. Secondary outcome was 1-year freedom from reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients underwent the Hemi-Commando procedure during the study period. The patients' mean age was 59.8 ± 18.3 years. The study population was predominantly male (86.4%). Preoperative sepsis was present in 6 (27.3%) patients, and the median EuroSCORE II was 28.5%. Almost two-thirds (N = 14; 63.6%) of the patients presented with native IE. Streptococci were the most common pathogens (N = 8; 36.4%). Paravalvular abscess was found intraoperatively in 16 (72.7%) patients. The 30-day mortality was 13.6%. The estimated 1- and 3-year survival rates were 77.5% and 66.4%, respectively. The estimated freedom from reoperation at 1 and 3 years was 92.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hemi-Commando procedure offers an acceptable mid-term survival chance with low reoperation rates and is, therefore, a reasonable mitral valve-sparing alternative to the Commando procedure in suitable patients with extensive IE and perivalvular involvement.

Mitral repair versus replacement: 20-year outcome trends in the UK (2000-2019)

OBJECTIVES

Using a large national database, we sought to describe outcome trends in mitral valve surgery between 2000 and 2019.

METHODS

The study cohort was split into mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement, including all patients regardless of concomitant procedures. Patients were grouped by four-year admission periods into groups (A to E). The primary outcome was in hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were return to theatre, postoperative stroke and postoperative length of stay. We investigated trends over time in patient demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes. We used a multivariable binary logistic regression model to assess the relationship between mortality and time. Cohorts were further stratified by sex and aetiology.

RESULTS

Of the 63 000 patients in the study cohort, 31 644 had an MVr and 31 356 had a replacement. Significant demographic shifts were observed. Aetiology has shifted towards degenerative disease; endocarditis rates in MVr dropped initially but are now rising (period A = 6%, period C = 4%, period E = 6%; P < 0.001). The burden of comorbidities has increased over time. In the latest time period, women had lower repair rates (49% vs 67%, P < 0.001) and higher mortality rates when undergoing repair (3% vs 2%, P = 0.001) than men. Unadjusted postoperative mortality dropped in MVr (5% vs 2%, P < 0.001) and replacement (9% vs 7%, P = 0.015). Secondary outcomes have improved. Time period was an independent predictor for reduced mortality in both repair (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.61, P < 0.001) and replacement (odds ratio: 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.61, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital mortality has dropped significantly over time for mitral valve surgery in the UK. MVr has become the more common procedure. Sex-based discrepancies in repair rates and mortality require further investigation. Endocarditis rates in MVS are rising.

Twenty-Year Experience with Surgery for Native and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Endocarditis

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the early and long-term results of surgical treatment of isolated mitral native and prosthetic valve infective endocarditis. Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement for infective endocarditis at our institution between January 2001 and December 2021 were included in the study. The preoperative and postoperative characteristics and mortality of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 130 patients, 85 males and 45 females, with a median age of 61 ± 14 years, underwent surgery for isolated mitral valve endocarditis during the study period. There were 111 (85%) native and 19 (15%) prosthetic valve endocarditis cases. Fifty-one (39%) patients died during the follow-up, and the overall mean patient survival time was 11.8 ± 0.9 years. The mean survival time was better in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (12.3 ± 0.9 years vs. 8 ± 1.4 years; p = 0.1), but the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve repair had a better survival rate compared to patients who had mitral valve replacement (14.8 ± 1.6 vs. 11.3 ± 1 years; p = 0.06); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis had a significantly better survival rate compared to patients who received a biological prosthesis (15.6 ± 1.6 vs. 8.2 ± 0.8 years; p < 0.001). Patients aged ≤60 years had significantly better survival compared to patients aged >60 years (17.1 ± 1.1 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the patient's age >60 years at the time of surgery was an independent risk factor for mortality, while mitral valve repair was a protective factor. Eight (7%) patients required reintervention. Freedom from reintervention was significantly higher in patients with mitral native valve endocarditis compared to patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (19.3 ± 0.5 vs. 11.5 ± 1.7 years; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgery for mitral valve endocarditis is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The patient's age at the time of surgery represents an independent risk factor for mortality. Mitral valve repair should be the preferred choice whenever possible in suitable patients affected by infective endocarditis.

Limited Versus Radical Resection in Mitral Valve Infective Endocarditis Surgery

Background: Mitral valve repair is preferred in patients undergoing surgical treatment for infective endocarditis (IE) of the native mitral valve, however, radical resection of infected tissue and patch-plasty might potentially lead to low or non-durable repair. We aimed to compare a limited-resection and non-patch technique with the classic radical-resection technique. Methods: Eligible candidates were patients with definitive IE of the native mitral valve undergoing surgery between January 2013 and December 2018. Patients were classified according to the surgical strategy into two groups: limited- versus radical-resection strategy. Propensity score matching was used. Endpoints were repair rate, all-cause mortality (30-day and 2-year), re-endocarditis and reoperation at q-year follow-up. Results: After propensity score matching, 90 patients were included. Follow-up was 100% complete. Mitral valve repair rate was 84% in the limited-resection versus 18% in the radical-resection strategy, p < 0.001. The 30-day and 2-year mortality were 20% versus 13% (p = 0.396) and 33% versus 27% (p = 0.490) in the limited-resection versus radical-resection strategy, respectively. The incidence of re-endocarditis during the 2-year follow-up was 4% in the limited-resection strategy versus 9% in the radical-resection strategy, p = 0.677. Three patients in the limited-resection strategy underwent reoperation of the mitral valve, while there were none in the radical-resection strategy (p = 0.242). Conclusions: Although mortality in patients with IE of the native mitral valve remains high, the limited-resection and non-patch surgical strategy is associated with a significantly higher repair rates with comparable 30-day and mid-term mortality, risk of re-endocarditis and re-operation compared to the radical-resection strategy.

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve plasty or replacement in patients with infectious endocarditis: A meta-analysis

Background

For degenerative mitral disease, more and more evidences support that mitral valve plasty (MVP) has much better clincial outcomes than mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the advantages of MVP in patients suffering from infectious endocarditis (IE) are unclear. To evaluate the appropriateness of MVP in IE patients, we conducted this meta-analysis. Based on the difference between active and healed phase, we not only compared the result of patients with IE, but also identified the subgroup with active IE.

Methods

We systematically searched the clinical trials comparing clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients suffering from IE. Relevant articles were searched from January 1, 2000 to March 18, 2021 in Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Studies were excluded if they were with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score less than 6 or lacking of direct comparisons between MVP and MVR.

Results

23 studies were involved and 25,615 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed fewer adverse events and early or long-term death in the MVP group. However, more reoperations existed in this patient group. And the reinfection rate was close between two groups. Similar results were observed after identifying active IE subgroup, but there is no difference in the freedom from reoperation due to all-events.

Conclusions

Although limitimations exited in this study, patients suffering from IE can benefit from both MVP and MVR. For surgeons with consummate skills, MVP can be the preferred choice for suitable IE patients.

Long-Term Results of Patch Repair in Destructive Valve Endocarditis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment of destructive endocarditis with abscess formation is a surgical challenge and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A root replacement is often performed in case of an annular abscess. This retrospective study was designed to assess the long-term outcome of extensive debridement and patch reconstruction as an alternative approach.

METHODS

Between November 2007 and November 2016, a selected group of 79 patients (29.6% of all surgical endocarditis cases) with native valve endocarditis (NVE, 53.2%) or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE, 46.8%) valve endocarditis underwent surgical therapy with extensive annular debridement and patch reconstruction. Their postoperative course, freedom from recurrent endocarditis, and survival at 1, 5, and 7 years were evaluated.

RESULTS

About two-thirds of patients were in a stable condition, one-third of patients were in a critical state. The median logistic EuroSCORE I was 17%. Infected tissue was removed, and defect closure was performed, either with autologous pericardium for small defects, or with bovine pericardium for larger defects. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 11.3% (NVE: 9.7%, PVE: 13.2%; p = 0.412). In single valve endocarditis survival at 1, 5, and 7 years was 81, 72, 72%, respectively for NVE, and 80, 57, 57%, respectively for PVE (p = 0.589), whereas in multiple valve endocarditis survival at 1, 5, and 7 years was 82, 82, 82% for NVE, and 61, 61, and 31%, respectively for PVE (p = 0.132). Confirmed late reinfection was very low.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of destructive endocarditis with abscess formation using patch repair techniques offers acceptable early and long-term results. The relapse rate was low. PVE and involvement of multiple valves were associated with worse outcomes.

Repair versus replacement for active endocarditis of the mitral valve: 9 years of experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To determine the factors contributing to successful mitral valve repair (MVP) and to discuss the effect of complex techniques on the durability of MVP for active infective endocarditis (IE) affecting the mitral valve.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 39.6% underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 60.4% underwent MVP. We used logistic regression to identify influencing factors of the choice of surgical technique. The results were compared between groups and subgroups after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Risk factors for MVR included poor valve quality (odds ratio [OR] 23.3, p = .001), a large defect after debridement (OR 16.4, p < .001), and heavy valve infection (OR 3.7, p = .027). After PSM, we did not find a significant difference in the frequency of major postoperative complications or the in-hospital or postdischarge death rate. The reintervention rate for MVP was significantly higher than that for MVR (p = .047). Subgroup analysis found a significant relationship between the use of a complex repair technique and the need for reoperation (p = .020).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of valve repair or replacement for patients with active IE affecting the mitral valve was influenced by the intraoperative characteristics of the infected valve rather than the severity of systemic infection or overall health status. The choice of surgical treatment strategy had no effect on major postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, or medium-term survival. However, the medium-term durability of MVP was poorer than that of MVR. The use of the patch technique for free margins or extensive leaflet defects was associated with a need for reintervention.

Valve replacement or repair in native mitral valve infective endocarditis-Which is better? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Native mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) plagues patients and surgeons alike because of its high mortality and recurrence rates as well as poor prognosis. Mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) are two main surgical methods. However, the question of which benefits patients more remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically review the two approaches, focusing on the early survival rate and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using studies sourced from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane literature databases to compare MVP and MVR, with data extracted for baseline characteristics, mortality, survival, recurrent endocarditis, and valve reoperation. Risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) values were calculated, and publication bias was tested.

RESULTS

A total of 17 relevant publications with a total population of 3759 patients, with 1180 patients having undergone MVP and 2579 patients having undergone MVR, respectively, were analyzed. Patients who underwent MVP may benefit from a lower risk of early mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.66; p < .00001), a higher long-term survival rate (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; p < .001; I2  = 0%), and a lower risk of recurrence (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.09; p = .10; I2  = 0%). However, a similar risk of reoperation was observed for both groups (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.36-2.91; p = .96; I2  = 43%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MVP may lead to better outcomes compared to MVR. Among patients with mitral valve IE, MVP can reduce in-hospital mortality, improve long-term survival, and has a lower risk of recurrent endocarditis. As a result, MVP may be suitable as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Valve endocarditis, to repair or not to repair, is that really the question?

The meta-analysis by He et al. has the worth to cover, as much as possible, a gap of scientific evidence were conducting a randomized trial appears very complex for ethical and logistical reasons. The authors concluded that mitral valve repair (MVP) provides better-pooled results, both early and late, with respect to mitral valve replacement. However, the superiority of MVP is driven by some single large cohort studies where surgeons had wide experience in the field of MVP for infective endocarditis. This finding is also confirmed by other studies. But if mitral repair produces such a better short- and long-term survival than replacement, why are there no clear indications from consensus and guidelines pushing surgeons toward the pursuit of a reconstructive procedure at almost any cost? We wonder to repair or not to repair, is that really the question? The AATS consensus suggests repairing "whenever possible" but without providing more specific indications. If the two primary goals of surgery are total removal of infected tissues and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve(s), probably MVP should be performed in case of less extensive tissue detriment by the infection. In more wide valve involvement, MVP may be the choice but only in very expert hands and in Centers with a very large volumes of valve repairing. This decision cannot, therefore, be the result of the choice of an individual but must derive from a careful multidisciplinary discussion to be held in an EndoTeam.

Infective endocarditis and outcomes of mitral valve replacement

BACKGROUND

We investigated the long-term outcomes of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in native mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE).

METHODS

Multicentre, population-based cohort register study consisted of 1233 consecutive adult patients treated with first-time MVR in Finland. Mitral valve IE was diagnosed in 170 of these patients. Propensity score matching resulted in 134 pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 6.1 years.

RESULTS

Pre-operative native mitral valve IE was associated with an increased hazard of 10-year mortality (38.8% vs 30.5%; HR 2.13; CI 1.17-3.85; P = .013) after MVR. Occurrence of major bleeding was higher in IE patients (26.0%) vs non-IE patients (23.4%) during the 10-year follow-up (HR 2.80; CI 1.01-7.77; P = .048). Hospital admission duration after MVR was longer in IE patients (median 28 vs 11 days; P < .0001). Cumulative ischaemic stroke rate was similar between patient groups (12.1% in IE vs 15.1% in non-IE; P = .493). Re-sternotomy was performed in 13.4% of IE patients and 9.0% of non-IE patients (P = .261).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with native mitral valve IE have a higher risk of death and major bleeding after MVR than matched patients without IE. Results highlight the importance of complication prevention in these patients.

Repair of Isolated Native Mitral Valve Endocarditis: A Propensity Matched Study

In the setting of chronic primary mitral regurgitation, the benefit of mitral valve repair over replacement is well established. However, data comparing outcomes for mitral valve surgery for endocarditis is limited. We sought to determine whether mitral valve repair offers traditional advantages over replacement in the endocarditis population. Retrospective review of our institutional mitral valve database (N = 8,181) was performed between 1998 and 2019 for all adult patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery for endocarditis. Patients were stratified by mitral valve repair or replacement and propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and degree of valve damage. Overall, 267 surgeries (124 repair, 153 replacement) met inclusion criteria during the study period. Following propensity matching, the repair cohort was associated with shorter initial ventilator times (5.6 vs 7.9 hours, p = 0.05), shorter ICU (28 vs 52 hours, p = 0.03), and hospital lengths of stays (7 vs 11 days, p < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality (0% vs 2.1%, p = 0.01) and 10-year survival (88% vs 86%, p = 0.55) were similar between cohorts. Patients in the repair cohort were less likely to require repeat mitral valve intervention at our institution for recurrent endocarditis than those in the replacement cohort (0% vs 10.6%, p = 0.03). Mitral valve repair is safe, when feasible, in the setting of isolated native valve endocarditis and may provide patients faster recovery. Experienced mitral surgeons should approach this patient population with a "repair if feasible" methodology.

Role of Mitral Valve Repair for Mitral Infective Endocarditis

The 2 primary objectives of surgery in mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) are total removal of the infected tissue and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve. Single-institution series have suggested the feasibility and effectiveness of mitral valve repair (MVrep) over replacement in mitral IE in terms of in-hospital mortality and long-term event-free survival. This article reviews the history, details of the relevant repair techniques, and clinical results of MVrep for mitral IE.

Feasibility and outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with infective endocarditis

Background

Valve repair is the treatment of choice for native mitral valve regurgitation. The feasibility of repair when the defect is caused by acute infective endocarditis (IE) is debated. This study aims to compare the outcome of repair and replacement procedures, to report the rate of repair in a single surgical center, and to review the literature on this topic.

Results

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with native mitral IE, potentially eligible for surgical repair. Of these 108, 90 (83%) underwent surgery, and 18 were treated conservatively. Among the 90 surgical patients, 57 (63%) underwent valve replacement and 33 valve repair (37%). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. The two primary endpoints were mortality and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the post-operative incidence of major adverse events (hospitalization for any cause, pacemaker implantation, new onset of atrial fibrillation, sternal dehiscence), left ventricular systolic function (LVSF), and valvular function at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up. All-cause mortality was lower for valve repair, although not significantly (p = 0.86), as well as nonfatal adverse events (p = 0.92) and relapse rate (p = 0.20) at 3 years. We did not find differences between the two groups at echocardiographic follow-up, neither for left ventricular systolic function (p = 0.22), nor for valvular continence (p = 0.28).

Conclusions

In our experience, the mid-term outcome of repair in IE is comparable to valve replacement and should be considered whenever possible, as in degenerative valve disease. The review of the literature supports this strategy.

Outcomes of emergency or urgent mitral valve repair in patients with papillary muscle rupture and active infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Emergency or urgent surgery is often required in patients with papillary muscle rupture and active mitral valve infective endocarditis. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with active endocarditis who underwent emergency or urgent mitral valve repair.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2014, 154 ischemic mitral regurgitation patients and 41 infective endocarditis patients underwent mitral valve repair in our institution; 23 had emergency operations due to papillary muscle rupture, and 18 with active infective endocarditis underwent urgent surgery.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass time (141.4 ± 43.3 versus 145.3 ± 46.5 min) and crossclamp time (77.7 ± 34.1 versus 79.2 ± 33.0 min) were similar in the papillary muscle rupture and elective ischemic mitral regurgitation subgroups, and major postoperative complications were comparable. Hospital mortality was 17.4% in the papillary muscle rupture subgroup and 8.4% in the elective ischemic mitral regurgitation subgroup. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (103.6 ± 37.0 versus 75.5 ± 20.8 min) and crossclamp time (61.7 ± 21.2 versus 45.3 ± 18.0 min) were significantly longer in infective endocarditis patients. There were no major complications or hospital deaths. Eight years postoperatively, overall survival was 94.4% and 86.5% in the papillary muscle rupture and elective ischemic mitral regurgitation subgroups, respectively (p = 0.730). Overall survival was 100% in both infective endocarditis subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The feasibility and effectiveness of emergency or urgent mitral valve repair in patients with papillary muscle rupture and active infective endocarditis are satisfactory. Early and mid-term outcomes are comparable to those of elective operations.

Mitral valve repair for infective endocarditis: Kobe experience

Objectives

We retrospectively analyzed our experience of mitral valve repair for native mitral valve endocarditis in a single institution.

Methods

From January 1991 to October 2011, 171 consecutive patients underwent surgery for infective endocarditis. Of these, 147 (86%) had mitral valve repair. At the time of surgery, 98 patients had healed (group A) and 49 had active infective endocarditis (group B). Repair procedures included resection of all infected tissue and thick restricted post-infection tissue, leaflet and annulus reconstruction with treated autologous pericardium, chordal reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures, and ring annuloplasty if necessary. Fifty-two (35%) patients required concomitant procedures. The study endpoints were overall survival, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from valve-related events. The median follow-up was 78 months.

Results

There was one hospital death (hospital mortality 0.7%). Survival at 10 years was 88.5% ± 3.5% with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.052). Early reoperation was required in 4 patients in group B due to persistent infection or procedure failure. Freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 99% ± 1.0% in group A and 89.6 ± 4.0% in group B (p = 0.024). Event-free survival at 10 years was 79.3% ± 4.8% (group A: 83.4% ± 5.9%, group B: 72.6% ± 6.9%, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

Mitral valve repair was highly successful using autologous pericardium, chordal reconstruction, and ring annuloplasty if required. Long-term results were acceptable in terms survival, freedom from reoperation, and event-free survival. Mitral valve repair is recommended for mitral infective endocarditis in most patients.

Outcomes of mitral valve repair in acute native mitral valve infective endocarditis

OBJECTIVES

Mitral valve repair (MVR) is considered the treatment of choice for mitral valve (MV) regurgitation. However, MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis is technically challenging and not commonly performed. Our goal was to report our outcomes of MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis.

METHODS

Between January 2016 and December 2017, 35 patients presenting with acute native MV infective endocarditis underwent MVR. Primary end points were successful MVR and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary end point was the postoperative incidence of major adverse events.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58 ± 13 years (74% men) and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 17.1%. Twenty patients underwent isolated MVR; the other 15 patients underwent concomitant procedures. MVR was performed with removal of the vegetation (vegectomy), limited resection of the infected tissue, direct closure of the defect, besides annuloplasty in all patients. Mean intensive care and hospital stays were 5 and 17 days, respectively. All-cause mortality was 11% (4/35) at 30 days and a total of 23% (8/35) within a follow-up period of 10 ± 7.7 months. Endocarditis recurred in 2 patients 15 and 8 months after surgery, respectively. Both underwent successful MV re-repair. Follow-up echocardiography indicated none-to-trace, mild or moderate regurgitation in 15, 10 and 2 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis is a complex procedure, it offers a treatment option for such patients with acceptable short-term results. Limited resection in addition to annuloplasty is our preferred method of repair. Nevertheless, long-term results in a larger cohort are still mandatory.

Contemporary trends and outcomes of mitral valve surgery for infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Contemporary data on mitral valve (MV) surgery in patients with infective endocarditis (IE) are limited.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients with IE who underwent MV surgery between 2003 and 2016. We assessed (a) temporal trends in the incidence of MV surgery for IE, (b) morbidity, mortality, and cost of MV repair vs replacement, and (c) predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The proportion of MV operations involving patients with IE increased from 5.4% in 2003 to 7.3%, and the proportion of MV repair among those undergoing surgery for IE increased from 15.2% to 25.0% (P_trend  < .001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the replacement group (11.3% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and this excess mortality persisted after propensity score matching (11.2% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and in sensitivity analyses excluding concomitant surgery (unadjusted 11.3% vs 4.8%; adjusted 8.5% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stratifying patients by the time of operation (within 7 days, 11.3% vs 6.8%; P < .001 and >7 days, 11.9% vs 9.1%; P = .012). In the propensity-matched cohorts, shock and need for tracheostomy were more frequent in the replacement group, but rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation, new dialysis, and blood transfusion were similar. Mitral valve repair was, however, associated with shorter hospitalizations, more home discharges, and less cost. In a multivariate regression analysis, age above 70 and chronic dialysis were the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Mitral valve repair in IE patients is associated with lower in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and cost compared with MV replacement.